North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

If the US attacks NK, then China is obliged to send military assistance under a treaty signed half a century ago. Things could get interesting.
 
Jason2 said:
If the US attacks NK, then China is obliged to send military assistance under a treaty signed half a century ago. Things could get interesting.
Click to expand...

China wouldnt move a muscle. The US is not going to unilaterally attack NK for the hell of it, so it would take an NK invasion of SK for them to put boots on the ground and that would be obvious it was coming for days before. Even if they were needed, which given that NK is armed with last centuries ex-soviet gear and SK has all the latest american gear I would highly doubt they would need to, China would have been given plenty of opportunity to lean on the NK leadership - if the NKs went ahead anyway, they would be doing it without chinese support.
 
Moses said:
A) Do you know the specific wording of the treaty? NK's aggressive stance could make it null and void, for example.

B) China could just choose to not get involved, anyway.
Click to expand...
While Beijing is no doubt furious with Pyongyang over its provocative nuclear tests and fiery rhetoric, it cannot afford to turn its back on the North. If Kim Jong Un's regime were to collapse, millions of North Korean refugees would likely flood across the border into China
Click to expand...
 
While Beijing is no doubt furious with Pyongyang over its provocative nuclear tests and fiery rhetoric, it cannot afford to turn its back on the North. If Kim Jong Un's regime were to collapse, millions of North Korean refugees would likely flood across the border into China
Click to expand...

It's more about controlling US power projection in that region.
 
Moses said:
That's a completely different issue. They're not going to war with arguably the only superpower in the World, just to stop refugees which'll cross in the event of war anyway! If they want to stop refugees, they'll make sure the border's supported well enough (I'd guess it probably is already, but they could easily move some more troops there to keep it nice and tight).

IF it happened, I'd wager they'd take refugees and hold them in suitable camps, à la the norm for humanitarian crises, anyway.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree with you, but isn't this slightly worrying?
 
527181_505259766187885_1878671869_n_zpsb555f9c2.jpg
 
why? are you likely to be leading the charge?

shame they have cut off access to the manufacturing area. that didn't even happen after the destroyer ho-ha
 
Moses said:
You quotation doesn't back up your statement.
Click to expand...

The US chose to break the Armistice Agreement.

that both sides should not introduce new types of weapons into South Korea
Click to expand...

An agreement the US was involved with.

and stationed nukes in to South Korea for possible use against the North. Wither they would have used them or not, is beside the point and your attempts to play down this are embarrassingly poor. Given the fact the US had used them only a handful of year ago, against one of North Koreas neighbours is obviously important. How you can’t see this is beyond me, or maybe you are simply choosing to ignore these facts.


They're both ridiculous. Why would the US need to use nukes against NK? Their conventional weapons are more than enough.
Click to expand...

Again, no ONLY YOUR comparison is ridiculous. You tried to compare the US stationing nukes in Germany as a threat to the United Kingdom (when they were closest of allies) to that of the US stationing nukes in South Korea for use against North Korea (enemies). They are in no way comparable or both ridiculous. Even a child can see the difference.

Why did the US use nukes in Japan when conventional weapons were more than enough? Maybe similar reasons. And secondly does it really matter? The sheer fact they were placed there, at a highly provocative time was clearly enough for North Korea to push for a deterrent of their own.

Who cares, could be for multiple reason. Maybe the same reason they apparently used them in Japan, a quick end to the situation. Doesn’t change the fact of the matter that the US introduced nuclear arms to the region.


As I said, the situations were different. The US and USSR were each such powerful entitities that the only way to take them down was to use nukes, which therefore meant that either party targeting the other with such weapons was a serious business. NK, on the other hand, was, and is, a relatively weak party... and not one which requires nukes to defeat - conventional weapons are more than enough. Therefore it'd be reasonable for the US and USSR to get scared when missiles were in places such as Cuba and Turkey, but NK didn't have anything to fear from nukes in SK because they were completely unnecessary in the event of a conflict with the US (as the US wouldn't need them to obliterate NK).
Click to expand...

Are you absolutely bat**** insane?? North Korea shouldn’t have been worried because one of their arch enemies had 950 nuclear weapons stationed a stone’s throw away from their country for possible use against them :eek: In a period of war, multiple skirmishes and high tension. Furthermore given the US had used them only 10 years or so earlier, is not something "to not be worried about" Proven by the fact North Korea attempted to procure their own deterrent 5 short years AFTER the US stationed nukes in South Korea.

The nature of them were different. The missiles in Cuba were close, which meant that in the event of a first strike, by the USSR, the US would be screwed. That's obviously a very scary escalation, in a MAD dominated world. Nukes in SK weren't a comparable threat to the USSR, they were different to the thread posed to the US by missiles in Cuba.
Click to expand...

The missiles in Turkey and North Korea were of a similar distance to Russia; in fact on the map Turkey and North Korea are level with Russia above both. I asked why Russia didn’t demand both missiles nuclear bases be removed from both Turkey and North Korea given both could hit Russia with ease.

Non-proliferation isn't a US 'thing'. Most states agree nukes should be restricted.
Click to expand...

And what does this have to do with these events given

Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970
Click to expand...

And the US stationed nukes in South Korea in 1958 and North Korea started to try and get their own in 1963.....

China was significant, back then. Hence why Macarthur wanted to use nukes against them in the Korean war! What are you on about when you mention Hong Kong? We weren't keeping Hong Kong by force... we had a lease for the New Territories, which was going to expire, so we negotiated the return.
Click to expand...

China didnt have Nukes till 1964, US stationed nukes in South Korea in 1958. Militarily China didnt stand a chance back then, heck even now as a Super Power they stand little Chance against the west.

Well Hong Kong hand over was regarded as a shift/change in times. Whilst i admit "nothing" was possibly a stretch too far.
 
Last edited:
Duff-Man said:
China will not annex North Korea directly into its territory. However it may set up a "friendly" government which is reliant on China for its stability in all major ways (economically, militarily, and politically). In this way it will work as an effective buffer, in much the same way that North Korea works now.

This is far from an ideal situation for the US, but if North Korea continues its military threats against the US and South Korea, then the US may begin to see it as a preferable to letting North Korea continue on its current path.


I still think China's path to this outcome would be through peacekeeping and post-war administration. They simply do not have the military might to quickly break the North Korean war machine, in the way that the US does. China has a lot of traditional army ground power, but they cannot even come close to the US in terms of air and naval forces.
Click to expand...

China would absolutely devastate north korea.
 
Moses said:
Remember all the talk of a build up of a massive naval armada by the US, near Iran, which meant action there was imminent? Nothing happened.

A) It may not even be true.

B) If it's true it could be part of pre-planned exercises.

C) If it's true, it could just be a pragmatic move to protect against a worst case scenario - it doesn't mean they want anything bad to happen.

Etc.

So no, I'm not worried.
Click to expand...

I suppose, when combined with the news that the North aren't mobilizing then you're probably right.
 
Narj said:
Some men just want to watch the world burn.

Me too.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean but I just can't see it happening. NK would suffer horrendously if they tried anything. It just doesn't make any sense to actually follow through with any of the threats. Making them had its reasons but to actually act would be suicidal.
 
Duff-Man said:
After the Korean war both North and South Korea were pretty much on a level footing. The South chose a path of international integration, and democracy. The North formed a brutal communist dictatorship that existed purely to serve the agenda of the country's elite. You can see for yourself how these two different philosophies have worked out.
Click to expand...

Um....I think you might wanna do some more reading on that mate :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom